Topic: Politics

Just a thought. Consider:

We know that Republicans are typically Conservative and Democrats are typically Liberal.

We also know that Conservatives like to keep things the way they are for the most part. They are "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change" (Dictionary.com).

Liberals, on the other hand, promote change for the most part. They are "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs" (Dictionary.com).

In that case, does that not mean that during the era of the Civil War, Republicans were the Liberals for wanting to abolish the institution of slavery and Democrats were the Conservatives for wanting to keep it in place?

Topic: Blog News

I have just joined a blogger network called FlyBy Promotions. This network exists to write reviews for faith and family based products. The reviews are beneficial to the public interested in the products and the companies that produce them.

​So from now on, you will occasionally see such reviews on this blog. Hopefully my reviews will better improve the lives, experiences, and choices of everyone involved in some way.

- James D. McIntosh Jr.

P.S. Sometimes there will also be giveaways sponsored by FlyBy Promotions. That's always fun, right?

Topic: Politics, Society

﻿I like the media. I listen to my local NPR station and read online news posts from various sources. They are informative and sometimes even entertaining.

But they do have their flaws, especially when it comes to politics. I am going to address a couple of these flaws, because I would like to bring them to the public's attention and see them eradicated.

PART 1: THE PRIMARIES

The Primaries. The time for those who actually still associate themselves with political parties to vote for who they want to vote for later.

(I think the system needs to change, but that's another post for another time.)

Recently, Indiana had their Primary. Of course, much to the nation's disappointment/horror, the Republicans got Donald Trump. He now has no Party rivals.

On the Democrat's side, Bernie Sanders took the lead in that state. (My sources are the entire media network, but you can see some numbers at The New York Times's website.)

Speaking of the entire media network, what do they make of this win? Well, since Sanders is slightly behind Hillary Clinton overall, they don't care about him. Everyone has already assumed Clinton is going to win the Democrat's nomination.

Take a look at the current delegate count at the above New York Times site or at CNN.com. It will likely change in the future, but it gives you an idea for the current situation. Sanders still stands quite a chance.

It is, after all, a race. The leader, or "front runner," can change at any point, especially when the race is fairly close.

Right after Sanders won Indiana, however, the media continued talk like it is a done deal for Clinton to win. They say it is Clinton vs. Trump and rarely even bother to mention Sanders at all, as if he were out for good and we were already in the final elections. Even professional sources that should be fairly reliable, such as NPR, talk this way.

Whether you support Sanders or not, this is not fair to anyone. We are force fed information telling us who is going to win and how things will turn out. This influences who we will vote for (for those who can vote in the Primaries).

In turn, Sanders gets gypped. He loses exposure and votes. When the media ignore him, the public begins for forget he is there because he is not talked about.

Do you want to be forced fed and let the media decide who get nominated?

PART 2: POLITICAL PARTIES

This brings me around to my 2nd point. In a similar way that the media is only discussing Clinton and Trump, they only discuss Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe some of us want other options. Or at least to know about them, because they are indeed out there.

They fall through the cracks, however, and do not stand a chance because no one pays any attention to them.

What about those of us who are Independent and would like to see an Independent become president? Or those who are members of a so-called "third party" and want to know who they can vote for? Those parties don't even get Primary elections, which may be part of the reason the media does not care about them.

Just because these third parties and non-parties are minorities does not mean they do not stand a chance and we do not want to vote for them or know about them. The only reason they do not make it is because we are not aware of them and some people who are aware will not vote for them for the wrong reasons.

Because a majority of the nation believes you have to be a member of the two big parties to win, they do not vote for anyone else. They think no one else stands a chance.

It is that thinking, however, that makes things turn out the way they do, which is not always good. For example, look at Trump. I heard a guy say on NPR he only voted for Trump in the Primaries because he thought he was the only one who could win.

If the majority of the nation stopped thinking this way and voted for who they wanted to, things would turn out very differently. Do you really think you are the only one who likes a certain small party candidate? Think again.

It is, after all, the majority of Americans that thinks this way. So if they stopped, they would make a difference because of their great numbers.

So, media, give us the coverage we want. We need to see some changes and some more options in this country, and your selective coverage is disappointing, as well as wrongfully influential.